Full Citation

Title: Doing Their Duty: An Empirical Analysis of the Unintended Effect of Tarasoff v. Regents on Homicidal Activity

Citation Type: Journal Article

Publication Year: 2014

ISBN:

ISSN: 0022-2186

DOI:

NSFID:

PMCID:

PMID:

Abstract: The seminal ruling of Tarasoff v. Board of Regents of the Universities of California enacted a duty that required mental health providers to warn potential victims of any real threat to life made by a patient. Many have theorized that this required breach of confidentiality may have adverse effects on effective psychological treatment-but the issue remains unaddressed empirically. Because of the presence of duty-to-warn laws, patients might forgo mental health treatment that would prevent violence. Using a fixed-effects model and exploiting the variation in the timing and style of duty-to-warn laws across states, I find that mandatory duty-to-warn laws cause an increase in the homicide rate of .4, or 5 percent. These results are robust to model specifications and falsification tests and help to clarify the true effect of state duty-to-warn laws.

Url: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1544574

User Submitted?: No

Authors: Edwards, Griffin

Periodical (Full): Journal of Law and Economics

Issue: 2

Volume: 57

Pages: 321-348

Data Collections: IPUMS USA

Topics: Crime and Deviance

Countries: